What are your thoughts as the season has come to an end. Looking backwards? Looking forwards? Good times -- things you liked? Tough times -- and things you'd like to do differently? Just curious...

Upcoming year, I am looking forward to the two divisions and Challenge. The Early Bird Flight will be good. The Early Bird Book last year was a great idea. Like we talked some time this year, making that book available on-line would be a plus too. Last years bummer (besides that I didn't finish any better at the end of the year), I think you extended the dealine for 3 or 4 of the tournaments. That gets a big thumbs down. Next year, looking forward to different waters, should be a great time. Thanks you do a great job!

Tim Zwieg (half of team #29 this year)

Looking back -- there were a couple of tournaments that you could have improved the weather. Otherwise the past year was run great except for the entry extensions which I know there were reasons that you had to do it. I hope you don't buckle to pressure by having a check in boat above the locks at the championship. This would extend the weigh in and wouldn't be a good spectator plan. Locking up or down at any tournament is part of a teams strategy and if they get caught it's part of the game. I have one question, did the boats get the OK to talk to the Lockmaster on their VHF radio or were they for emergency only?

The boats had permission to use their radios and their cell phones to contact the lock master. It is a challenging situation and we wanted to keep the communications pretty open.

I tend to agree with you re: the locks. This is part of the sport. It's like stealing a base in baseball. It's part of the rules -- it's okay to do -- but if you gamble and it doesn't work out; don't try to re-write the rules. It's a part of the strategy that comes into play. It creates drama and is part of the sport.

Come on....the only bad weather this year was Escanaba! Spring Valley was in the 60s in March. Shirt sleeve weather. Big Stone Lake was nice in May. Lake City was a little bit cool but not bad for last weekend in September in Minnesota. (maybe a little too windy but at least it was dry.)
The championship was AWESOME! Sunny and pretty nice everyday! Especially Saturday was in the 70's for October. I will admit Escanaba was two solid day of rain and it created a lot of challenges. This is why we need Christian Fellowship meetings with MWC. We need prayer warriors to pray for good weather every tournament!! :-)

It was a great year.
And I think all teams that fished the circuit would have to agree.
About the lock situation.
I think a change is in order.(My Opinion)
This is 2 years in a row that problems
arose because of this rule.
I have seen rules changed for much less.
Not real keen on the deadline extentions.
Other then those two small iteams I think it is better then ever.
Thanks for all the hard work.
Schmitty

FYI The teams that want the check in boat by the lock are not trying to rewrite the rules.This is how we did it at Red Wing.

Of all the tournaments entered this year, the MWC has the best memories.

I (and Pete of course) are very happy you extended the deadline as we otherwise would not have entered. The success we enjoyed in the last 2 tournaments has helped to encourage us in seriously considering attending the challenge next year.

And as far as your rules - like locking through - as long it applies to all, and you have made every effort to make me aware, will accept them. One thing is for certain, if we elect to go through it will make the day more stressful!

Otherwise, I noticed you were working very hard at these tournaments, and very much enjoyed Kaz's stage work.

I thought all the tournaments were run very well.

On the down side, extending the entry deadline on 3 tournaments was a major dissapointment to most.

Also, having in writing who/how you qualify for the Cabela's National Champioship before the season would help.

2003 was a great year Kristine,keep up the good work for '04. I will miss some of the old waters but am looking foreward to the new tourny sites. I have to agree with the previous posts about the deadline extensions: NO GOOD!!!!
Question for Rick Larson - you mention that you wouldn't have enterd if the deadlines had not been extended. Why? There may be good reasons for extending the entry deadlines that those of us who don't like the extensions are overlooking or are not aware of.
Thanks,
Rick Stange

Opps!! No intent for the frown icon, I haven't learned to use my 'puter yet.
Rick

It was a good year on the MWC, in fact the last two years, and no near riots during a rules meeting says something in itself.
Which brings me to a couple of suggestions I have about rules meetings. I would like to see the MWC run all rule meetings from start to finish. Sponsors, sponsoring clubs, local organizations should get first allocations of time to promote their product, club or community. But for the actual rules part of the meeting it would be a lot quicker and less confusing if the same person from the MWC would review the procedures and rules for the tournament using a common format for tournament after tournament. So often much time is wasted because the rules are presented to anglers in so many different ways and often-omitting important information. With the expansion of the MWC this year it may be worth some consideration.
On a different note it was nice to see the flights and boat numbers reversed at all the tournaments giving each angler equal time on the water. Competion is tuff and for our team we need all the time on the water we can get.

Looking forward to Spring Valley and the start of another tournament season.

First of all Rick, am hoping those who have been offended by the rule change do not blame me. My partner and I only took advantage of it.

And really don't have a good reason why. After I had fished with Pete at Spring Valley, had no intentions of fishing with him ever again. He was more interested in all the other fisherman, answering questions about his former partner and such, that it took him off his game and effected how well we did in that tournament.

But Pete worked on me. He was the only person to call and support me during other tournaments.

It took awhile, but finally started to like him again. When he hedged around in fishing the TFM tournament in LBDN, I accepted with no desire whatsoever to fish the MWC LBDN.

Since he had me to himself in the boat for 3 whole days and by the time that tourney was over (finished 24th), he had me agreeing to sign up for the MWC event. But by this time it was well into the deadline and we would not have entered had it not been extended.

Dito for the last Lake Pepin Tournament.

Pete pointed out that with the good finish in LBDN, we had the chance to make the championship - please believe me - I had even less desire to fish that tournament as I have never fished the river other than as an amateur during one event.

But he talked me into it, and again, after the deadline had been extended.

So there you have it. There probably is no good reason at all for the Tournament Director to extend the deadline. But since it happened, would sooner highlight the positive outcome of it than otherwise.




[This message has been edited by Rick Larson (edited 11-02-2003).]

Yes, the rules meeting format has confused me over the last two years too. It is an MWC tournament no matter where it is; and we should probably own the majority of distilling information to keep it consistent. This goes back to a lot of years of history -- and that the local clubs used to be in control of a lot more details and planning than they are today. With the new sites this will come easily (they will expect us to run the rules meeting) but with the more established sites it could be harder. That said, the role the of the local clubs is very important and very vital to the success of the tournament. Not just from implementation but also from planning. So their organization and input is very important to the MWC and ultimately to the anglers. We continue to strive for consistency (where possible) between sites. Sometimes change gets bucked locally; and sometimes changes are embraced enthusiastically.

I think 2003 went OK. It was better than 2002, and what you want to see is improvement.
I'll never quite understand why a small minority insists that the majority is wrong about a check-in boat above the lock. For the gazillionth time the reasons for doing so are simple:
1) The people at the lock and dam wouldn't have to answer 50 phone calls between 10 a.m. and noon and go out of their way to hold back barges and lock through as many of our guys as possible when a barge is approaching.
2) The people at the lock wouldn't have to bend the rules to help our anglers get back on time (i.e. coming out of the locks before the gates are open and the horn sounds)
3) It would not delay the weigh-in. If half the field goes up, the other half can get the weigh-in started.
4) Anglers who would like a check-in option above the dam are also willing to give up fishing time in exchange. That's only right.
5) It worked so well at Red Wing I never thought the MWC would do it any other way again.
Whatever.
A couple of other notes. Most of us have a lot to do each night and not a lot of time to do it. We would greatly appreciate meetings that start on time. When it says 6 o'clock, it should mean 6 o'clock. Not 6:20. Not 6:30.
I also think that when it says you register from 5 p.m.-6 p.m., that should be enforced. If you are late, you go to the back of your flight. If you don't show, you are DQ'd.
We've also noticed that the off-the-water rule of 2 p.m. is rather loosely interpreted. Make an example of someone and this practice will stop.
Extending entries is a bad precedent. Enough has been said about that.
Lastly, I know of one great way to simplify this issue about qualifying for the Cabela's Tournament. Let them have their championship and we'll have ours! I still have a problem with the possibility that somebody from the Cabela's Tournament can come into our championship and take something the rest of us have worked for for years. I would bet their anglers feel the same way.
Just some thoughts.
Doug Newhoff

Hey Doug, we listen! Angler input regarding some of the topics you brought up, i.e., tournament registration, conducting uniform rules meetings & flighting are being addressed for the 2004 season.

In my tournament experience as a contestant: I have never fished a tournament (B.A.S.S., Redman, Great Plains Bass & other venues) that had multiple boat check-in areas. There was (is) one starting & one finishing area. If an angler chooses to make a long run, which may include locking through a dam (which I did many times), it is incumbent upon the angler to get back to the check-in area on time. Tournament fishing is a matter of decisions or choices, including where one will fish. It's a consciousness decision made by an angler, predicated on the existing rules. If an angler doesn't return at the scheduled time and place dictated by the rules, it's no fault of the tournament committee. Also, the decision to lock through a dam or make a long run is part of the mystic & drama of tournament fishing.

How about this? I would like your & other MWCers thoughts---Everyone fishes the same pool! No locking through.

Kaz

I do believe I've heard that song before! I know what you are saying. My point is that you are speaking on behalf of the minority. There are more compelling reasons to check in above the dam than there are to not do so.
Anyway, I really don't care. Locking through simply means a more efficient game plan that takes the risks into account. If that's the way it is, so be it.
As far as going to one pool, that would be fine although I can think of two reasons you might consider.
First, it's like changing the rules in midstream. What about the guys who fished the MWC strictly for a chance to qualify for a championship on Pools 9 AND 10? There are some of those out there. They might not have made the commitment if they knew they were fishing for a chance to compete just on Pool 10.
Second, what would reducing the championship to one pool accomplish? It would be taking opportunity away from anglers under the guise of making their life easier and not having to deal with the locks. It's sort of like reducing the number of rods that can be used to one each to save us the trouble of cleaning so much grass off our lures.
I'd need to hear some compelling argument to convince me that reducing the championship to one pool is in the best interests of the anglers, the spectators, television or the MWC.
Doug Newhoff

Kaz,

As long as the rules apply equally to all contestants, its ok with me. And concerning locking through, there is no doubt in my mind the "top 40" will adapt to whatever is decided.

How about this?? Since there are only 45 boats, most ramps could accomodate us from what I have seen in this area. Since most boats do, and want to fish Pool 9 for good reasons, why not launch the boats on Pool 9, boats still can lock down to Pool 10 and then we still drive the vehicles with the boat and fish to Cabela's(we need not worry about transporting the fish that distance). This would, I believe, help curb many of the issues that we are having and talking about. I believe everyone is being realistic when they say they would like to spend the majority of the time in Pool 9, but has been a hinderance in the past because of the lock issues. I believe this could be the best scenario for the contestants.

Now that's a thought, Jimmy!
My partner made the same point yesterday.
Newhoff

We are looking at other ramp facilities -- but so far the only thing that looks promising is the launch by Falling Rock. It's just 1/2 mile south of the lock&dam. Ron Easton, Pres. of the Falling Rock Walleye Club doesn't think there's anything in pool 9 with parking facilities for more than 20. I asked him to scope it out for me, and he will, but logistics, logistics, logistics come into play. The Falling Rock ramp is 8 miles north of the Cabela's store; so probably wouldn't take much more time than St. Feriole. It would be 55 mph highway driving and not 25 mph city driving so would probably take about the same amount of time.